Thursday, March 22, 2012

An Open Letter to EST Bilello from John Musumeci

Heil Lebo!!!
Via Email
Michael Bilello Executive Secretary-Treasurer
New York City District Council Of Carpenters
395 Hudson Street New York, NY 10014

Re: Violations of UBC Constitution, Roberts Rules of Order and Request for Apology

Dear Mr. Bilello:

I write in response to the conduct of President Lebo during the Delegate Body meeting of March 21, 2012. Specifically, approximately fifteen minutes into the meeting, I raised a Point of Order and Lebo incorrectly ruled me out of order, and unlawfully had me removed from the meeting. I request a written and public apology by President Lebo to the Delegate Body and myself.

As you are well aware, the presidents duties among other things, is to chair all meetings, enforce and be knowledgeable in the UBC Constitution, District Council By-Laws, Roberts Rules of Order, be honest, fair, neutral from partisan politics and protect the rights of the minority.

The symbol for the chair of a meeting is a gavel, which is a symbol of justice and fairness. It is not a crown, which is a symbol of royalty! The role of the chair is that of facilitator and servant of the assembly, not its master.

In parliamentary procedure the process for disagreeing with the chair involves two motions, Point of Order, and Appeal from the Decision of the Chair. It is the process of using one or both of these motions that keep the democratic process of decisions by the delegates alive and well.

Rules are put in place to protect members' rights, and when the rules aren't followed, those rights can get trampled. When any member notices a violation of the rules, especially if that violation impinges on the rights of other members, he/she has a right and duty to call immediate attention to the fact, and to rise quickly, (even if you interrupt a speaker), and say, Point of Order.

The chair's duty is to make a decision on the point of order, the chair requests the member to state his point of order, which he does and resumes his seat. The chair decides the point, which is usually ruled on in one of two ways: The point is declared either "Well-taken," or "Not well-taken," and a short explanation of the ruling is given, and then, if no appeal is taken and the member has not been guilty of any serious breach of decorum, the chair permits him to resume his speech. But, if his remarks are decided to be improper and any one objects, he cannot continue without a vote of the assembly to that effect.

Lebo has demonstrated a pattern of rule breaking, including misusing his authority by intentionally hindering the rights of the members, and not acting neutral when presiding over meetings.

Members are furious because our union continues to operate in a parallel universe, where the people elected and hired to represent us too often believe they rule us. You enforce the laws, and then demand exemption for yourselves.

Lebo has become the latest symbol by demonstrating an unwillingness to break from the mindset of the past. He violated his duty by ruling me out of order, (without the point even being stated) and by having me removed from the meeting.

The fact that Lebo brazenly committed these offenses while Review Officer, Dennis Walsh and Chief Compliance Officer Josh Leicht was in attendance suggests that he thinks his conduct is entirely correct and appropriate.

Lebo's conduct is entirely incorrect and entirely inappropriate. Lebo failed in his role as facilitator and servant, and instead has become its dictator thus violating the above rules and more importantly trampling the rights of the delegates and membership.

Lebo has absolutely no authority to rule me out of order or remove me from a meeting; the delegate body is the ultimate decider of procedural questions during a meeting not dictator Lebo.

Roberts Rules states: “The Chair has no authority to impose a penalty or to order the offending member removed from the hall, the assembly has that power.

Sequel to the above, I am respectfully requesting you instruct President Bill Lebo, to write a letter of a clear and unqualified apology for violating the rules of order, to be read at the next scheduled Delegate Body meeting. I am also requesting pursuant to Section 5 (F) of the District Council Bylaws, the Chief Compliance Officer and Inspector General review and investigate the above matter for constitutional violations.

John Musumeci
Delegate to the District Council

Cc: Review Office, Dennis Walsh
      President, Bill Lebo
      Vice President Mike Cavanaugh
      Chief Compliance Officer, Josh Leicht
      Inspector General, Scott Danielson
      Director of Operations, Matt Walker
      Delegates to the District Council


  1. "We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power".
    O'Brien (Nineteen Eighty-Four)


  3. Lebo is also very much for the OUT OF TOWNER. He's a piece of shit and didn't get Rev Al's vote. All members should of been outraged a long time ago with this fraud. It wont take long for the feds to shut down the nycdcc. Walsh needs to remove himself as RO because he's no longer impartial or effective. FUCK YOU OUT OF TOWNERS & FUCK YOU LEBO

  4. C Any member entering the meeting in a state of intoxication or
    who disturbs the harmony thereof, or uses profane or unbecoming
    language during the meeting shall be admonished by the Chair. If
    the member again offends, he or she shall be admonished again; and
    for the next offense may be excluded from the room. The fact that a
    member is admonished or excluded from the room under this Section
    shall not constitute a bar to the fi ling and processing of charges
    against the member based on his or her conduct at the meeting. A
    visiting member shall be subject to these Laws. The Chairperson
    shall strictly enforce this Section.

  5. UBC Constitution Section 32C..But it sounds like the rules are irrelevant. Shut up.Dont ask questions.McCarron might put us in trusteeship..We are not corrupt bu we created fake Sec jobs to get $185,000 per year. If these two clowns are so afraid of McCarron that they dont want you even asking questions how are they ever going to bring abut the changes they promised to get you to vote for them??
    I called it as soon as they were elect3ed. These guys will do nothing but try to stay on these jobs.Ohh. Dougy might get us.
    So much for Walsh and his super trooper delegates. Now they have had their nuts cut off and he did nothing. He promised the delegates would be free of intimidation and fear so they could do their job. What a joke. Also...How can you be a compliance officer when you have no ideas what the conduct rules are for a meeting???

  6. I remember when Mike was a hard working Carpenter, and a GREAT SHOP STEWART. I hope he can continue do the same as EST. Where did Lebo come from? I don't remember him.

  7. John: If Lebo does not apologize the next step would be to Censure him.

    Censuring officers

    Officers can be censured as well for behavior such as not performing duties, doing things beyond what the bylaws or organization has assigned the officer to do, and fraud.

    A presiding officer can also be censured for not following parliamentary rules in meetings, and for denying members their basic rights to make motions, participate in debate, and vote.

    In censuring a presiding officer, a member informs the chair that he or she is going to do so, and then turns to the vice president to make the motion. If the vice president refuses to entertain it or is not present, the member then presents the motion to the secretary. If the secretary declines or is absent, the member can present the motion to the assembly from where he or she stands on the floor. If the vice president or secretary conducts the censure, they do so from where they are in the assembly and not from the president's position. The president can speak in his or her defense but cannot vote on the censure.

    To censure the chair, a member presents the motion in the following fashion:

    Member: President Lebo, I am going to propose a motion to censure you, which I have a right to do. When a motion to censure the president is made, it is addressed to and entertained by the vice president. [The member turns to the vice president and presents it as a resolution.]

    Mr. Vice President, I move the following resolution to censure:

    "Whereas, The president has repeatedly denied members their right to make motions and debate; refused to entertain points of order and proper appeals; recognized only those who have upheld her views and denied the opposition the right to speak; and

    Whereas, he has been obnoxious, rude, and arrogant; and

    Whereas, such conduct is detrimental to the organization; now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, that the president be censured.

    This motion needs a second. The vice president places it before the assembly:

    Vice President: It is moved and seconded to censure the president. Is there any discussion?

    After discussion, the vice president takes a vote by ballot. If the affirmative has it, he or she states:

    Vice President: There are 35 votes in the affirmative and 5 in the negative. The affirmative has it and the motion is carried.

    The vice president then turns to the president and states:

    Vice President: President Lebo, you have been censured by the assembly for the reasons contained in the resolution. I now return control of the meeting to you.

    If the president persists in the behavior, the next step is to remove him or her from office. Members must follow the bylaws for this procedure. If the bylaws contain a provision on how to remove someone from office, follow that procedure. If the bylaws state that someone is elected to office for _____ years or until their successor is elected, the members can then rescind the election. If the bylaws state "elected to office for _____ years or "elected to office for _____ years and until the successor is elected," the members must have a trial. The difference between "or" and "and" in this part of the bylaws is substantial.


I would ask that if you would like to leave a comment that you think of Local 157 Blogspot as your online meeting hall and that you wouldn’t say anything on this site that you wouldn’t, say at a union meeting. Constructive criticism is welcome, as we all benefit from such advice. Obnoxious comments are not welcome.